It can be appreciated that pyrotechnic controls have been in use for years. Typically, pyrotechnic controls are comprised of electrical firing systems that rely on switches or contact closure thrown by the operator or contact closures initiated by computer control, and systems which are either wired directly from the main controller to the pyrotechnic devices or connected via wireless link or wireless local area network from a main controller to a slave device which is, in turn, wired directly to the pyrotechnic devices.
A problem with existing pyrotechnic controls is that most pyrotechnic controllers operate in a master-slave architecture. Pyrotechnic devices are prepared with electric matches for ignition, and the electric match is wired through a series of field modules and cables to a master control switchboard. The exact nature of the wiring boxes, cables, and switchboard varies and is not significant. At a predetermined point of time, either the operator or a timing control device activates a switching circuit to allow current to flow through one or more electric matches or effectors.
Some current systems provide techniques for generating an event list that references an audio/video data structure. In such known techniques, once the event is associated, the audio stream structure provides the timing reference to initiate the event. Unfortunately, this only works in a master-slave environment or when all devices that must interpret events have access to the timing stream or signal. This same problem occurs when an explicit timing signal such as SMPTE timing track is used to initiate the events.
Two examples of current decentralized systems are next briefly described. The first example teaches an array of “intelligent” effectors linked by a 2- 3- or 4-wire communications bus, where the master controller does not have complete control over the effector's firing, but the effector may be equipped with sensors whose condition is checked before functioning is permitted to occur. The second example teaches an array of intelligent sensors with two interlinked processors, one for real-time processing and another for non-real time processing.
In known systems, activation control may be hardwired directly from the battery to the ignition device, or through a coded electrical signal. In either of these cases, the master firing panel initiates the communication burst or event that causes ignition. If more than one match or sets of matches (cues) must be fired simultaneously, there is often a delay as the master firing panel must initiate separate communication or electrical events. This results in delays and latency as each initiator is fired sequentially. In addition, if wireless communication is employed between the master controller and slave devices, which perform the switching function, radio interference can cause significant delays in each transmitted packet further delaying the timing of the operation. These delays seriously disrupt the critical synchronicity of the music and pyrotechnic effect reducing the enjoyment of the audience. In pyrotechnic displays, it is not unusual to try to simultaneously launch hundreds of devices at the same moment across a wide area facing the audience or “front”. These delays seriously degrade this effect producing uneven firing patterns. In blasting operations, resonance effects require precise timing between initiator events, which would be critically destabilized by these delays and rendered ineffective. Similarly, in special effects work, the pyrotechnic event is often synchronized to sound or visual effects, and any delay in the firing would detract from the realism the operator is trying to achieve.
Another problem with conventional pyrotechnic controls is that existing controllers operate on a fixed voltage, current, and time specification. For example, a controller might apply to the electric match(es) when connected 12 volts at a maximum of 5 Amperes of current, for a period of 12.5 milliseconds. While this specification might be fine for most series wired electric matches, more time might be required if the matches are wired in parallel or inferior match production causes them to require more than 12.5 mS for ignition. In addition, if the operator wishes to control something other than a pyrotechnic device, a mechanical actuator for example, then a different voltage, current, and time pulse might be desired. Existing systems do not have the capability to automatically vary all of these parameters.
Yet another problem with the existing art is when wireless links are employed, a phenomenon known as shadowing occurs. When an object larger than the wavelength of the radio signal exists between the line-of-sight path of the transmitter and receiver, the signal may be seriously diminished or blocked completely. If the operator is holding the transmitter and changes position, different receivers may become shadowed, and other receivers may regain direct connections to the transmitter. Existing systems do not have the ability to maintain contact with a diverse array of receivers when the transmitter moves. Some current systems provide techniques for utilizing a local queue manager to deliver messages to diverse recipients; however, in the pyrotechnic field there is a need for the ability to instantly adapt to changing configurations.
While the foregoing devices may be suitable for the particular purpose to which they address, they are generally not as suitable for creating a firing system where zero latency, accurate timing, flexible output, and operator movement must be achieved.
In view of the foregoing disadvantages inherent in the known types of pyrotechnic controls now present in the prior art, there is a need for a new method for zero latency distributed processing of timed pyrotechnic events.
Unless otherwise indicated illustrations in the figures are not necessarily drawn to scale.